Need help forming strategy: Operation Penta-"gone". When US builds KIF?

They need to fix it that if Canada falls the USA is brought into the war. Depending on the USA build up in the EUSA they might try and retake Canada…but I think the USA could hold out a turn with the forces you listed in Canada and then they could build a massive army. What about an attack on both coasts? Can it be pulled off?

By the way, doesn’t Japan taking Britisch Columbia bring USA in the war in turn2?

It’s in the Pacific Rules.

If Japan takes control of an “american territory” (not only US) the US are imediately at war with Japan.

I assume you refer to page 8 AAP40 bottom section, first paragraph under “The Political Solution” last sentence: “However, any combat movements against the British, Dutch, ANZAC, or American territories, troops, or ships by the Japanese will bring all the Allied powers into the war.” Note: page 6 of the above manual top of page first sentence also states the same.

I refer you to the third paragraph(page 8 as above), first sentence beginning with “If Britain or ANZAC attack Japanese…” and ending with “…powers, but not bring the U.S. into the war.”

British Columbia is a UK-pacific territory, not an American territory. I suspect you confuse the continent of America with American territories. For game purposes an American territory is a territory with a USA control marker printed on it, on the map. To avoid such confusions, the game designers wisely printed nation specific control markers on all territories that start the game under control of the major powers in the game.

British Columbia has a Canadian control marker, and thus is controlled by UK-India. See page 8 AAE40 manual top of page end of first sentence parenthesis section: “… at the start of the game (the United Kingdom controls the Canadian territories).” See also page 34 same manual, UK first National Objective, second sentence: "This includes the territories of Canada."Also, I refer you to “Global United Kingdom Rules” section on page 32 AAE40 manual that refer to IPC generation (and thus control) on each board (pacific and Europe maps) and on the same page, four paragraphs lower clearly defines British Columbia is connected to Alberta. It is interesting to note that I had to list the above references from the Europe manual as I searched the Pacific manual and did not fine a reference to Canada being controlled by UK, however, a comparison of the starting IPCs and the Map IPCs infer that British Columbia was controlled by UK india in AAPacific.

Therefor, once at war, Japan, Italy, and Germany are all free to occupy Canada while keeping the US neutral during the first three turns of the game, assuming Japan holds back and does not provoke the US into war by attacking first and UK-India or ANZAC declared war on Japan first.

Incidentally, a reread of the sentence with the phrase “American territories” indicated that the word territories refers to the 4 nations listed before that word. That paragraph spells out what attacks Japan can make that will result in all out war. It continues to list troops and ships attacks as also bringing the Pacific into all out war. This paragraph does not apply when UK or ANZAC declare war first, thus you should use the 3rd paragraph to determine that the US will remain neutral until the US Collect Income phase on turn 3, assuming Japan does not declare war on the US prior to that turn.

Also, it is important to refer to page 31 AAE40 manual top of page second sentence: “These rules replace their counterpart rules in Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940.” and thus you should use the political situation rule on page 35 of the same manual under the United States section. The last two sentences of that paragraph define when the United states can declare war on the axis powers. It clearly calls for an “unprovoked” declaration of war by Japan on UK or ANZAC before it can declare war “early”. Clearly, if UK or ANZAC declare war first, there is no “unprovoked” declaration by Japan.

I hope this helps to clarify my position. Note it is possible for Germany to seize British Columbia on turn 4 to permit the Japanese to move there during non combat, however it would not matter as the US can declare war by then anyway.

The nice thing about seizing Alberta turn G3 (in a US/USSR 3 turn neutral plan), it permits the Japanese air force to get to the Atlantic faster than any other route.

I thus plan on keeping this as part of any London first Axis plan, as Japan can land on Iceland turn4 (pending a German air base on Alberta) and thus land in London on turn 5 to secure it from the US. Remember, from Alberta, the US must be careful where it places its surface fleet as the Japanese air force can hit it on round 4(and will typically surprise the US as the Germans build the air base on the turn after the US responds to the Jap air landing and thus might catch them by “surprise” with the extra movement).

Also note, that having one Italian transport in sz 91 permits a turn 4 capture of New Brunswick (naval base) and thus preventing any US fleet staged there from reaching London on US4. Delaying the take back of London by one turn, and permitting the Japanese air force to land there in time. Also note, Iceland is safe from a US landing as Japan can “scramble” and simply destroy the surface fleet that attacks Iceland. Once you “burn” the US once with Italy, they can simply move out to sea next game, to still hit London turn US4 or stage the UK cruiser from 85 in 106.

Once in London, a simple declaration of war against Spain can also catch the US fleet by surprise as this permits the Japanese air force to attack sz 91 (West Gibraltar sea zone) and permits them to fly “over” Spain to land in axis Europe. (sz109->sz104->sz91->Spain->Normandy/and or/South France).

I realize it is possible (although unlikely at first) for the UK to stage 2 infantry and 1 armor in Alberta by turn 2. Using Ontario and Quebec starting forces. This should be clear by turn G2.

Last night I experimented with taking Scotland from sz 109 G2 by placing a BB,CA,Sub there hoping to draw the UK fighters into a battle and also to protect the German transport, thus permitting any units in Scotland to hit with other units transported into London G3.

I am toying with a second transport G2 non combat to drop off 1 infantry and 1 AA gun in Scotland as well. Giving me 3 more units for the G3 assault, using 2 of my transports “twice” and a chance to kill UK air units if they help to hit Scotland. 3 land units in Scotland may draw too many UK units if they take, and hit and runs are not likely with 2 artillery and 1 armor as the UK offense. This leaves 1 transport on G2 for Iceland/and Alberta.

Either way, any units spent killing my 3 land units in Scotland should make capturing London G3 easier. If they live, that is 3 more units to use against London turn 3. It also permits convoy raiding for 4.

Therefor, once at war, Japan, Italy, and Germany are all free to occupy Canada while keeping the US neutral during the first three turns of the game, assuming Japan holds back and does not provoke the US into war by attacking first and UK-India or ANZAC declared war on Japan first.

Incidentally, a reread of the sentence with the phrase “American territories” indicated that the word territories refers to the 4 nations listed before that word. That paragraph spells out what attacks Japan can make that will result in all out war. It continues to list troops and ships attacks as also bringing the Pacific into all out war. This paragraph does not apply when UK or ANZAC declare war first, thus you should use the 3rd paragraph to determine that the US will remain neutral until the US Collect Income phase on turn 3, assuming Japan does not declare war on the US prior to that turn.

(…) It clearly calls for an “unprovoked” declaration of war by Japan on UK or ANZAC before it can declare war “early”. Clearly, if UK or ANZAC declare war first, there is no “unprovoked” declaration by Japan.

Well, things like this are part of the reason why UK/ANZAC should never éver declare war on japan.

They have no valid reason to do so as well: no bait is beneficial enough for them to grab (before turn 3), knowing they keep their strongest future ally out of the war.
And they have better things to do: grabbing bonuses and islands, gathering money, getting stronger and preparing for the merciless beating they’re gonna get from japan

So, although they are clever strategies, they really need a big sticker “against newbies only”

The nice thing about seizing Alberta turn G3 (in a US/USSR 3 turn neutral plan), it permits the Japanese air force to get to the Atlantic faster than any other route.

I thus plan on keeping this as part of any London first Axis plan,

This is brilliant. Call it Kill Russia Last.

You don’t need to The Commonwealth to declare war for you. Go ahead and declare J3 in order to fly over BC. (incidentally, I think you should land 2 infantry, one tank, and on anti air craft gun to Alberta G3). Unless America has bought heavy ground units, you can hold Alberta.

If America does build ground troops, You can still hold UK for some time (though I haven’t decided if this is worth the price). If This draws enough resources to let Japan into Panama J4 (and through J5), it will be a long time before The US establishes any European campaigns. The US needs to Threaten Alberta turn three, and defend East US from Japan, and hold Panama (or produce a counter assault).

KRL might just work even if USA sees it coming. I haven’t had time to really work out a proper response for US, but if you can take England and hold USA off for several turns, The Axis may have a shot. German survivors in UK can move to Canada G4 to aid the Japanese, or move back to West Germany to protect against Russia.

The nice thing about seizing Alberta turn G3 (in a US/USSR 3 turn neutral plan), it permits the Japanese air force to get to the Atlantic faster than any other route.

i’m confused (alot of strat on these pages)… how does Germany reach Alberta in turn 3?

Sorry for the various strats, trying to “figure” out a viable way to pull it off.

Germany reaches Alberta on G3, by moving from Iceland (sz123) to Alberta (sz121) as the northern most part of Alberta “reaches” around at the top to connect to sz121 by about an inch of its border(right next to Greenland). Sea zone 121 appears to connect to Greenland/Quebec/Alberta.

Its weird, but Alberta seems to be one of the tallest territories on the map (Japan or Brazil might be taller). (With a German air base, Japan can fly 5 from there to reach Scotland or sea zone 101 if they can land in Ontario/Quebec/New Brunswick; Iceland is only 4 spaces away).

Anyway, in Global, unless someone sees this coming, the air base in Soviet Far East, and the German transports in Iceland may not tip off the US that Alberta is the goal. Again, even if not going after the U.S., this “appears” to be the fastest way to get to the Atlantic in Global.

Personally, I see more UK-India players, with the money they have from not being attacked, declare war on Japan UK2 just to liberate Yunnan for China, since they go before China and can thus assure the Burma road N/O. It would be a vary cautious UK player that waits while China fights Japan.

It is true that you can just fly over anyway on J3, but declaring war J3 permits the US to land on Iceland US3 when they declare war on the axis. I just noticed that you can land in Scotland on J4 as the US can not easily reach Scotland from 101, they would need to be closer, probably in 103,109,117 as Italy taking New Brunswick would deny the naval base.

Sorry for the various strats, trying to “figure” out a viable way to pull it off.

Germany reaches Alberta on G3, by moving from Iceland (sz123) to Alberta (sz121) as the northern most part of Alberta “reaches” around at the top to connect to sz121 by about an inch of its border(right next to Greenland). Sea zone 121 appears to connect to Greenland/Quebec/Alberta.

Its weird, but Alberta seems to be one of the tallest territories on the map (Japan or Brazil might be taller). (With a German air base, Japan can fly 5 from there to reach Scotland or sea zone 101 if they can land in Ontario/Quebec/New Brunswick; Iceland is only 4 spaces away).

Anyway, in Global, unless someone sees this coming, the air base in Soviet Far East, and the German transports in Iceland may not tip off the US that Alberta is the goal. Again, even if not going after the U.S., this “appears” to be the fastest way to get to the Atlantic in Global.

Personally, I see more UK-India players, with the money they have from not being attacked, declare war on Japan UK2 just to liberate Yunnan for China, since they go before China and can thus assure the Burma road N/O. It would be a vary cautious UK player that waits while China fights Japan.

No need to be sorry, it is hard to avoid in a growing topic.

I like reading your thinking faraway from any box strategies, they are always daring and surprising. You do have to assume alot of actions/purchases from Allied side (and i realize: if not you cannot think past turn 2) and that will probably be the weak spot in these strategies.
By the way, i usually plays the Allies so i read your strats from that point of vies (don’t know if that is good or bad)

Now, an airbase in Sov. Far East should raise more than a few eyebrows in the Allied camp, as that location clearly points so North America/Canada (any other directions make no sense, so they will know you’ll be going out for them, only they cannot know exactly which territory you’ll aim for) and flying over Brit. Col is quite a clever move, and a nice exercise in synchronisation.

I do wonder how all this would affect the rest of the game.

By the way, thinking as India, i would still not attack Japan, but instead use my extra resources to help out in the Middle-East and Africa. Or just to build up forces (it would depend on the situation). It’s only 3 turns until war will start anyway, there’s enough useful to be done until that time. I’d prefer for Russia to help out abit in China.

Anyway, in Global, unless someone sees this coming, the air base in Soviet Far East, and the German transports in Iceland may not tip off the US that Alberta is the goal. Again, even if not going after the U.S., this “appears” to be the fastest way to get to the Atlantic in Global.

If they do see it coming, USA needs to build enough ground forces to blow up Alberta (you can land three German units plus an aa there), as well as hold Western from a potential J3 assault (parking the bulk of the IJN in sz12 prevents US navy from blocking Hawaii or California). They also want to prevent (or beat back) a J4 landing in Panama, lest the IJN reach the Atlantic.

I think USA might have their hands full even if you tell them your plan.

@JamesAlemanlink=topic=20678.msg703769#msg703769date=1287728978:

Personally, I see more UK-India players, with the money they have from not being attacked, declare war on Japan UK2 just to liberate Yunnan for China, since they go before China and can thus assure the Burma road N/O. It would be a vary cautious UK player that waits while China fights Japan.

In my games India focuses on Africa and the Mediterranean. So while they might be happy to liberate Yunnan, they may not have the resources in that area. It’s true though, the only consequences of a UK2 DOW are limited to whatever Japan can do to UK on J3. Allies might not see flying over BC as a threat.

I’m currently waiting on a ruling regarding what territories C.US borders.

Did you ever get that ruling? On the back of the board (where the picture is wrapped around) Central US clearly touches Alberta. But if we get a ruling that the two don’t touch, the Japanese air force is safe in Alberta even if they declare war so as to fly over BC.

Nothing is official at the time of the response. However, Kevin indicated that it may likely be considered adjacent. They haven’t decided.

If I play the allies, I think I’ll get in the habit of leaving ground units produced in Central, as they are still adjacent to sz 101 and have more reach, unless you plan on empty transports meeting your land units on New Brunswick.

Should it be adjacent, the US starts with like 10 land units and I think 13 or so air units and I suspect it will not be safe to land there with a US at war. Especially since they will have 2 rounds of production on the board. Hopefully it isn’t connected or you can get UK to declare war on Japan turn 2.

“5 - There is nothing in the rules to support your view. There is a general restriction on powers not at war with anyone flying over other powers’ territories, but this doesn’t apply here as each of these powers is at war with someone. There are also specific restrictions, but none of them prevent UK and Japan from flying over each other’s territories. This could change in the FAQ, but I doubt it.”

This means there is no need for Japan to declare war on anyone or for anyone to declare war on Japan turn 2.

Now, Japan is able to fly over British Columbia to land in German occupied Alberta on J3 regardless of war status. (Personally, I would like to see this addressed, but that is the game as it stands).

Therefor in America first or London first plans, sending the Japanese air force to the Atlantic is assured when the US is kept neutral for 3 turns provided the Japanese build an air base in Soviet Far East on turn 2.

Note: Russia can attack S.F.East on turn 2, if they stacked 12 or fewer infantry in Siberia on turn 1, very unlikely(or seldom seen).

1. As pointed out the Uk has no reason to declare on Japan…the USA player would kill the brit player if they did that. This would be a case of the allied players not talking to each other. In which case they are going to lose anyway.

2. The USA player can’t be so stupid as to disreguard threats near them, you can’t suprise them really. Again if the USA player is that stupid you don’t need weird tactics to beat them, you can beat them straight up through tactics.

1. As pointed out the Uk has no reason to declare on Japan…the USA player would kill the brit player if they did that. This would be a case of the allied players not talking to each other. In which case they are going to lose anyway.

2. The USA player can’t be so stupid as to disreguard threats near them, you can’t suprise them really. Again if the USA player is that stupid you don’t need weird tactics to beat them, you can beat them straight up through tactics.

I agree completely on both points.
USA should see anything that can reach it the next turn as serious (especially as it is faraway from all the action so anything within reach is highly suspicious.
Ground troop builds are the right answer (and they are not at all waisted IPC’s, since sooner or later they all will have to board for either Europe or Asia).

1. As pointed out the Uk has no reason to declare on Japan…the USA player would kill the brit player if they did that. This would be a case of the allied players not talking to each other. In which case they are going to lose anyway.

2. The USA player can’t be so stupid as to disreguard threats near them, you can’t suprise them really. Again if the USA player is that stupid you don’t need weird tactics to beat them, you can beat them straight up through tactics.

1: You no longer need UK to declare war on Japan. See reply number 32 for explanation. Japan is free to fly over UK territories while neutral. This does not cause a declaration of war, per Krieghund.

2: You no longer need to surprise the US. In fact, it appears that keeping US neutral 3 turns prohibits them from being able to stop this air force move.

Finally, the only player able to stop/impact this, is USSR. They need to shove 12 units to Siberia turn 1, to threaten a take back of Soviet far East. Japan should lose 2 air units and 2 ground units destroying this force on J2. This is not likely, as Japan hasn’t started the game yet, so they would have to “guess” that Japan is going this route and expose a large portion of their starting Eastern forces to a Japanese invasion.

This post is regarding moving the starting Japanese air force to German occupied Alberta. It is not an argument for just America first. It is a discussion for how to always be able to get the air force to the Atlantic. America first may have a lot of problems yet to be resolved. This is one less problem.

Suggested Topics

There is a reason why I strongly prefer to play the axis.
My last live game I was like, “I will give you a Russian bomber, 5 usa inf anywhere in mainland america, a sub in sz 98, and an infantry on new guinea. If I get to be the axis.” He was like “that sounds like a really good deal.”
It was a close game.
~
It is like America’s economic system, it will crash then money will be reallocated based on the social security system. That is the game plan. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense, sure the people who start out with the most monetary wealth in this new system will be the ones who paid into social security the most (makes sense to me). Everyone has other wealth, land, possessions etc so wealthy people will be fine.
I do not see why anyone would be afraid of the dollar collapse.
~
Just try that 5 inf USA, bomber russia, sub 98, inf new guinea. Like if you are good with the axis you should be fine with the allies getting all that stuff.

I would abuse improved shipyards right off the bat. I would make sure that the USA had the only floating major navy in both oceans. No point of having an edge if you don’t abuse it. And Japan can’t get its cites if they have no fleet.

@soulfein:
-middle east fac(s)
-convoy raiding sz97 till ita turns into china in 41 v3
-trying to hold india to fly air to moscow and/or helping egy after moscow s fallen
-looking to normandy drops only after japs caged n usa can stack some transports in sz91
Bam…that’s it. Most games are going that direction. Rome and Cairo are the kickbacks before Moscow goes down. From there it gets even- very long slow grind.
The battle is won in the Med/Africa/MidEast region period. It gets very tactical and dicey here, which is why I think the game is even, Allied advantaged as the game gets longer, past 10 rounds.

@Red-Harvest the situation you suggest on G1 is a good example, but as you said it’s unlikely to occur for the reasons you outline.
The only other possible situation I can see is still easily countered: a transport off Siam. But that can be countered by UK blocking Burma & Sumatra. Might be able to pick off the UK navy that way, but I don’t think it’s worth it. Even a harbour in Kainan/Kwangsi is easily countered. A lot of investment in a feign that doesn’t really threaten India, and diverts much needed units from China & the money islands. Not worth it imo

@Gargantua:
Europe 1950?
SWEET game Idea! The Germans and Japs still going strong! Choppers and computer technology! Jet Fighters and Moon Missions! I love it!
What about the Italians? :roll:
Europe 1950 could also be cold war style

@The-Pripet-Martian said in General strategy question:
For example, 3 defending INF can be expected to get one hit per combat round. If you send in enough planes to ensure you’ll kill all 3 enemy INF, you only need to send 2 INF in to secure the territory.
According to probability, yes, but in practise, if you really need that territory, I’d go in with atleast 3 inf. Hitting 2 with 3 inf on def is not too uncommon. Hitting 3 is rather unlikely.
On top of that it also depends who will earn from a war of attrition. If I do, I go, no worries. If I don’t, I won’t, unless it’s for clear strategical and tactical purposes (like your opponent not being able to land planes in a stack next to your Capital).